Your unofficial guide to television licence rules, regulations, loopholes and enforcement in the UK.

Why we're here:This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download on-demand programmes via the BBC iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.

Sunday, 22 September 2013

In Court With TV Licensing: Back at North Tyneside Magistrates

You might remember that he attended North Tyneside Magistrates' Court last Thursday, 19th September 2013. All of TV Licensing's prosecution cases in the Northumbria local justice area (Northumberland and Tyne & Wear) are dealt with by this court, which is situated in the riverside fishing town of North Shields. TV Licensing cases are heard every Thursday, both morning and afternoon sessions.

The same Capita Court Presenter as before, who we dubbed Hagrid's evil twin sister, was acting on their behalf. We have just confirmed that her name is Helen Robson.

Adee's observations are given below. It was a very busy day, so he did very well to keep up with proceedings:

1. Defendant was male. He attended the hearing in person, which happens only rarely. He had moved into the property only 4 weeks prior to being caught. After discussion outside with the Capita Court Presenter he decided to plead guilty.
Outcome: Fine (F) £65; Victim Surcharge (VS) £20; Costs (C) £90.

2. Defendant was male. He was caught as the result of a search warrant execution (an exceptionally rare event). He obviously has a sense of humour, as he told the court his occupation was avoiding TV Licensing people.
Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £120.

3. Defendant was female. She is a single mother in receipt of benefits.
Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

4. Defendant was male. He denies answering the door when the goon visited. He also said that the signature on the TVL178, which was purportedly his, actually wasn't. A potentially interesting case, but sadly no further details were noted.
Outcome: Not guilty.

5. Defendant was male. The case was reopened due to him moving address and not being aware of the original summons. Pleaded guilty by post.
Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

6. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 months.
Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

7. Defendant was female. She attended the hearing in person and pleaded not guilty on the basis that she had previously set up a standing order to pay her licence fee. TV Licensing do not accept standing orders, so the payment failed. After discussion outside with the Capita Court Presenter she changed her plea to guilty. Has one previous conviction for the same offence.
Outcome: F £57.50; VS £20; C £90.

8. Defendant was female. She works as a support worker.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

9. Defendant was female. She is a housewife and pleaded guilty by post.
Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

10. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 8 months. Has one previous conviction for the same offence.
Outcome: F £100; VS £20; C £90.

14. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 5 months. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

15. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 6 months. The Magistrates wanted additional information about her husband's income.
Outcome: F £104; VS £20; C £90.

16. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months.
Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

20. Defendant was male. Pleaded guilty by post. He is in receipt of benefits. Has one previous conviction for the same offence.
Outcome: F £250; VS £25; C £90

21. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 months. She is a single parent.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

22. Defendant was female. She works as a retail assistant and has one previous conviction for the same offence.
Outcome: F £300; VS £30; C £105.

23. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 day. She had set up a payment plan, but defaulted on the payments.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

24. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 7 months. He is unemployed and has one previous conviction for the same offence.
Outcome: F £110; VS £20; C £90.

25. Defendant was male. Pleaded not guilty on the basis that his equipment was unable to receive TV programmes. Told the court he did not use his broadband connection to watch TV programmes online. After some whispering between the Capita Court Presenter and Court Legal Advisor he was found not guilty. Another interesting case, because presumably the evidence against him was patchy to say the least.
Outcome: Not guilty.

27. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of more than 6 months. She is a single parent.
Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

28. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 weeks. She is in receipt of benefits.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

29. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. She is a housewife.
Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

30. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

31. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 7 weeks. He is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

32. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 6 months. She is pregnant with her second child and currently not working.
Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

34. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.
Outcome: Case adjourned.

35. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 months. She is in receipt of benefits and has been convicted of the same offence four times previously.
Outcome: F £137.50; VS £20; C £90.

36. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

37. Defendant was male. Court told that he is currently on long-term sick leave from work.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

38. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.
Outcome: Case adjourned.

39. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 5 days. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

40. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. He is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

41. Defendant was male. The court is told that he works part-time.
Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

42. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

43. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is in receipt of benefits.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

45. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 6 months. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

46. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.
Outcome: Case adjourned.

47. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She is in receipt of benefits and has been convicted of the same offence three times previously.
Outcome: F £157.50; VS £20; C £90.

48. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 4 weeks. He is self-employed.
Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

49. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 4 weeks. He is unemployed and has one previous conviction for the same offence.
Outcome: F £150; VS £20; C £90.

50. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 4 months. He is in receipt of benefits.
Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

51. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.
Outcome: Case adjourned.

54. Defendant was female. Pleaded guilty by post. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 5 days. She is currently on maternity leave from work.
Outcome: F £135; VS £20; C £90.

55. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 6 weeks. He is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

56. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 months. She is unemployed and has one previous conviction for the same offence.
Outcome: F £105; VS £20; C £90.

57. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 day. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

58. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is in receipt of benefits.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

59. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She is in receipt of benefits.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

60. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 4 months. She is in receipt of benefits.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

61. Defendant was female. Attended the hearing to plead guilty in person. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. She does not speak English and was accompanied by a support worker who acted as interpreter.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

62. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She works for a well known animal charity.
Outcome: F £190; VS £20; C £90.

63. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.
Outcome: Case adjourned.

64. Defendant was female. Pleaded guilty by post. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

65. Defendant was male. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. He is in receipt of benefits.
Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

66. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. She is a single parent.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

68. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 weeks. She is unemployed.
Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

69. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.
Outcome: Case adjourned.

70. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of more than 6 months. She is unemployed. For whatever reason there are no costs awarded in this case.
Outcome: F £82.50; VS £20; C £Nil.

Thanks for your comment AliveAndFree. The court register gives details of all cases heard/sentenced by the court. It is available for public inspection, for anyone who has the time and inclination. A phone call to the court is all that's required to arrange a viewing.

Yes, cases are "heard" at a frantic pace. Almost hear the sound of don't give a f*ck rubber stamping of convictions in the street outside these TV Licensing kangaroo courts.

The best way to deal with Capita TV Licensing scum is not to open the door to them in the first place. If people do open the door the next best thing is to say NOTHING, sign NOTHING, VIDEO it, CLOSE door, PUBLISH video.

23. Defendant was female. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 day. She had set up a payment plan, but defaulted on the payments.Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.So, that's only £20,075 per year. Mmmm... at that daily rate.

Hmmm... noticed the KEY WORD here is ADMITTED.Most of them did not fight it but conveniently 'rolled over'.I am VERY interested in the guy who stated that his 'equipment' COULD NOT receive 'live broadcasts'. VERY similar to my case m'thinks. Hopefully the 'cant receive' defence frightens them because of an appeal to a higher Court ?

Support Our Blog

If you've found our articles entertaining and informative, and would like to show your appreciation, you can do so by using our link to shop with Amazon as you would normally.
Thanks to all our loyal readers for their continued support.